BearX220

Real quote, or apocryphal? Would love a source, if the former.

Darlox

+1, and an anecdote. I misconnected on AA flying to HPN a month or so ago at ORD. I have zero status with them -- nada. Made it to the gate right at departure time, and they'd already closed up. Gate agent walked me over to an adjacent desk on concourse G where there was a supervisor.

Super rebooked me on a flight to LGA, called the gate to let them know I was running over, since departure was only ~15 minutes later, and when I got to the gate, they had my BP and a bag tag waiting, since overheads were full and the super told them I had a rollaboard.

I was floored. It's pretty remarkable what a positive attitude can do, and UA's initiatives here aren't going to help much until that staff culture turns around.

AlanSFO

A pilot out of available flight time can still turn the master on and go through the light checklist, as could a mechanic, as could a retired pilot on a desk job, as could a .......

kop84

I think why DL can be more on time comes down to a seemingly unrelated thing.

DL has a much lower debt ratio as well as net debt.

So DL for the most part owns their planes outright where UA is still making payments.

It's a lot cheaper to park a fully paid for plane as a spare than one that you're still making payments on. So more fully paid planes = equal more spares = better OT/completion.

Obviously it's a bigger commitment by DL than just parking spare planes but that can be a lynch pin in the strategy that makes the other investments like parts and crews more financially palatable.

fly18725

While I agree with parts of your premise, I think you've reached an incorrect conclusion.

The encumbrance of airplanes does impact fleet decisions. Airplanes with a lower-cost of ownership (e.g. owned, older-vintage airplanes) can provide variable capacity with more airplanes parked during off-peak days and seasons. Leased airplanes have high fixed costs and do not provide efficient variable capacity. Owned airplanes, levered or not, provide more efficient variable capacity. Spare airplanes should be viewed more of an opportunity cost. Many spares are cycling in or out of maintenance and would be unable to otherwise operate a full schedule. Some airlines maintain hot spares, dedicated aircraft parked and ready to go into service. Deciding to keep a hot spare is not as much about the cost (debt service is relatively minimal), but the opportunity cost of not generating revenue.

I would point out that when comparing the impact of leverage on fleet strategy, the total amount of debt is less relevant than how the debt amortizes and must be paid back. Delta and United's debt service is comparable: $1.3B/year for United vs. $1.2B/year for Delta. United does have more aircraft on lease than Delta (in part a function of how its regional fleet is structured). Ultimately, the number of leased aircraft in United (or Delta's) fleet is quite small and the cost of the leases doesn't materially impact the decision to keep spare airplanes.

On-time performance is more impacted by the different crew contracts, philosophies on fleet deployment and operating airports.

Austin787

Sorry, me and my parents had a much different experience when we flew AA CDG-DFW-AUS in January. CDG-DFW landed on time, but sat on the tarmac for one hour waiting for a gate. AA couldn't manage its gate ops
So the CDG-DFW flight finally parked at a gate over an hour late, and that caused us to miss our DFW-AUS connection. We talked to 3 different agents and each one told us to go elsewhere, basically their attitude was "it's not my problem". Finally we found an agent who rebooked us on a later flight to AUS. My parents fly UA regularly and whenever they miss a connection UA automatically rebooks them on the next flight, no need to see an agent. As far as my parents are concerned, UA >>> AA in dealing with IRROPS. I used to fly AA most of the time, now I shop around for the best deal.

Having a spare plane sitting around only works if the spare plane is in the same airport as the broken down plane. Doesn't do any good if a plane in MCO (for example) goes mechanical and the spare is in IAH (for example).

halls120

I had the same experience at MIA earlier this summer during a 3 hour MX delay on AA. Extra staff on hand, water and energy bars passed out (all the concessionaires were closed) and frequent updates on the efforts to get the plane fixed.

Contrast that with a memorable post merger experience at IAD on UA. Our plane goes MX because of a broken FD window. Many of us on the flight are connecting internationally in ORD. Two harried GA's trying to work the situation at the gate, and two UA CSRs and one manager watching from across the concourse - not lifting a finger to help their colleagues or muster some additional help.

spin88

well managed airlines (like DL, and what pmUA used to do) try to run their planes hub-spoke-hub. They then cycle them so that at least half the time they end up in the hub at night, a hub that does MX on that type of plane. So on half (or more, since many flights are hub-hub) there is/can be a spare. This then avoids downstream issues since the plane was substituted in, rather than having that MX cause further delays on the later flights it was to fly. UA now just cancels a whole set of flights when a single plane goes MX.

I can recall at least 20 times flying pmUA where we got an A/C sub. Often it was an upgage as UA kept a larger spare around. My SFO-ORD on a 757 became a 763 international, my SFO-DEN became a 772. United's fleet usage rate was lower because they kept a spare around. That costs $$$, but less if one has depreciated owned A/C.

I've only had it happen once on DL, my 757 flight became a 763 flight an hour before leaving ATL, MX and that was the spare they had. I got home OT.

CO never did this, it tried to get as much use out of its leased/new A/C as possible. This same strategy was used by CO in the merged airline, but often then with the A/C ending up at hubs w/o maintenance for that type of planes (an airbus ended up at IAH overnight, a 738 ending up at ORD or SFO or DEN) and with no spares.

There are many causes of the very poor operational performance at UA, but this is one of them.

kop84

True BUT the more planes in the more places the shorter the ferry flight.

If DL stashes planes in LAX/SEA/SLC/MSP/DTW/ATL/NYC and maybe a few other random places, they have a plane only a few hours away from anywhere in the US/CA

If UA stashes planes in EWR and SFO and no where else (I'm sure there are more places but just as an example) it takes a lot longer to get to the place it might be needed.

DL2SXM

I thought this was a very good article on UA finally owning up to the fact that Delta is simply a better run airline and that they want to equal them, not do better, but just equal. I thought that must have been very flattering for Richard Anderson to read if he hasn't already.

http://www.flyertalk.com/articles/un...eputation.html


“Delta is running a very good airline, and I want to equal that,” United Vice President of Network Operations Tracy Lee told Reuters.

Portolan

Most with a strategic vision would want to EXCEED their competitors! Though, admittedly, it'll be a major effort to equal Delta in many respects.

Madone59

It's good to have goals

Kacee

Nothing but empty words, considering that UA just decided to close its two best call centers (HNL and DTW).

UA marketing has come completely untethered from reality.

LASUA1K

Wow. This just shows how this management needs to go. Very sad statement.

Boo_Radley

There's nothing wrong with acknowledging the facts.

There's something very wrong with saying one thing and doing another. Execution details on *how* they're going to improve ops performance have been somewhere between "vague" and "counterproductive".